The Blessed Virigin Mary as Co-Redemptorix?-Explaination of the Roman doctrine

[Targaryen]

Ok, so let me start this off with the statement. As an Anglo-Catholic, I share a lot in common with Marian practise with my Roman brothers and sisters and my brothers and sisters of the Orthodox groups. However a certain part of the roman understanding of the Blessed Virgin eludes me. that is of the Roman doctrine of Mary as co-redemptorix.

I would like my Roman friends to explain why this is an essential part of the Marian doctrine in the RCC and explain how this concept does not detract from the Trinity or elevates Mary to the same as Christ.

But let me be clear, this is an explanation and teaching thread, not an attack thread and such any and all off topic or non-productive posts will not be tolerated. If you need to disagree only, your presence in this thread will not be conducive to education and understanding and as such you will be asked to leave.

That said, I look forward to learning about this doctrine in more depth.

 

[George95]

Seen WisdomTree's post below, nevermind.

 

[WisdomTree]

Hi LiberalAnglicanCatholic (LAC)!

First of all, let me just clarify that since the title of Co-Redemptrix is a doctrine not a dogma it is not as centric to Catholic theology as you may think it is. However, a doctrine is a doctrine however and unlike devotions such as the Rosary, it is not something that can be brushed aside or even condemned unless during an Ecumenical Council.

Now let me just say that I can understand your uneasiness to it cause that's how I felt as well (for ages) and when I heard that there used to be calls for it alongside Co-Mediatrix to be dogmatised via Ex Cathedra, my face went pale until I realised it was during the tenure of Saint John Paul II (I believe) in which I let out a sigh of relief.

It's been about a year since then and I have grown to understand the concept a bit more. What may probably put you off the most is probably the "Co-", perhaps even more so than the "Redemptrix" part. To put you at east, this does not in any way indicate equality between Mary and Christ (or even any part of the Trinity). Co-Redemptrix in this case should be understood how Co-Emperor was during the post-Dioclotian offices of the Emperor, especially of that of the Byzantine Empire (symbasileus).

When Roman Emperors elevated their sons (who were usually infants) or even their best of buddies to the status of a Co-Emperor, it was not to give equal authority to their peer, but rather indicate a form of delegation of some sort or even a pathway of future succession (since hereditary succession was illegal).

Although the political analogy of the Roman Co-Emperors does not fit neatly into that of the theological aspect and implications of the Co-Redemptrix, you can see that the point of it is not to indicate equality. In this case, it is of recognition. The Virgin Mary, or Theotokos is a Co-Redemptrix not due to her merit, but rather God chose her to be the Ark of Christ. Since our Redeemer was born through her, she was inadvertently involved in the redemption of mankind, thus is acknowledged as the Co-Redemptrix.

I know this is all convoluted and all, but I hope you got something out of it.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I too have often wondered about this doctrine. If I may add a question.

However, I too would like to affirm LiberalAnglicanCatholic's emphasis on education. My question is asked out of genuine interest not some sort of attempt to set you up.

WisdomTree, I believe that I understand your explanation concerning 'Co' not meaning 'equal'.

However, I have a question about this:

you can see that the point of it is not to indicate equality. In this case, it is of recognition. The Virgin Mary, or Theotokos is a Co-Redemptrix not due to her merit, but rather God chose her to be the Ark of Christ.

First let me clarify what I am NOT asking. I am not asking about the idea of Mary as God Bearer (which I affirm) nor am I questioning the idea of her as Ark (that which carries God is naturally the Ark). Nor am I questioning the idea that Jesus would have the power to make Mary his co-redemptrix.

My confusion is on why one would believe that he did. Yes, the Blessed Virgin Mary is clearly set aside as a special person, even one who is vital to salvation history. I even understand (though this one I do not agree with) the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, i.e. that the timeless Trinity loves the woman who will become God's mother so much that he allows her to be spared from the horrors of original sin.

But I don't understand the jump to Jesus loves his mother so much that she becomes 'Co', even with the understanding that that doesn't mean 'equal'.

I tend to agree with Anselm on the efficacy of redemption. Redemption was possible only by a God-Man. God because only God was powerful enough, but Man only because Man was the being in need of redemption. I don't understand how Jesus elevating his mother to the level of co-redemptrix progresses his mission of redemption.

Now that being said I have no problem with Mary being an intercessor, even the most important intercessor, on humanity's behalf. But my understanding of the doctrine of Co-redemptrix is that it takes it a step farther then that.

Any help understanding would be great.

 

[justinangel]

In the term co-Redemptrix, the prefix 'co' is derived from the Latin word cum which means "with", not 'equal to'. The prefix does not place Mary in an equal position with Jesus. Nor does it imply that the world has been reconciled with God on both the merits of Jesus and his mother. The Catholic Church has always taught that Mary herself was in need of redemption as a descendant of Adam like the rest of mankind. In other words, she was subject to inheriting the stain of original sin. 'In guilt I was born; a sinner was I conceived' (Ps 51:5). We read in Luke: "My spirit rejoices in God my saviour." But unlike the rest of us, Mary was redeemed in the most perfect way by virtue of her predestination to the Divine motherhood; she was preserved free from the stain of original sin at the first instant of her conception when God sanctified her soul in view of the foreseen merits of Christ. She was not sinless by nature, but made so by the intervening grace of God: "He has looked with favour on the lowliness of his handmaid."

The angel Gabriel said to Mary: "Fear not for you have found favour with God." In Scripture, fear of God is often associated with punishment and the Divine justice. 'There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment' (1 Jn 4:18). Mary had no cause to fear the Divine wrath, for her love of God was perfect in the true sense of the word. It was because Mary was made sinless by divine grace and constantly abided in God's love that the angel appeared to her with the good news. Her perfect love and humility rendered her worthy to be the mother of our Lord and intimately associated with him in his work of redemption. The word "redemptrix" comes from the Latin verb redimere, which means "to buy back" and trix, which denotes femininity. So the designation "co-Redemptrix" literally means "the woman who buys back with", or more precisely, "the woman with the Redeemer." Jesus alone is our redeemer, but his mother is associated with him in his redemptive work in the economy of salvation.

Original sin involved both Adam and Eve. But in Scripture we read, for instance, 'just as sin entered the world through one man….death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam…. (Rom 5:12, 14). Adam and Eve were husband and wife at the time of the fall, so the final responsibility for what took place in their marriage rested with him (cf Eph 5:22; 1 Peter 3:1; Titus 5:2; Col 3:18). Sin and death entered the world and affected all their biological offspring by Adam's transgression. But what led to the fall of mankind was Eve's disobedience and the role she had played as a type of devil's advocate when she prompted her husband to partake of the forbidden fruit. I believe Paul had this in mind when he drew a parallel between Adam and Jesus when he wrote, 'For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive' (1 Cor 15:22). Scripture speaks of the headship of the husband in terms of responsibility and service (cf Mark 10:41-45; Lk 12:48). Thus the headship of the husband confers on him a final responsibility for what happens in his household. This does not mean that his wife may be without guilt any more than Eve was without guilt. But headship does mean that the head has to answer for whatever happens under his roof. It was because Adam had to render an account for what had happened that God called out, 'Adam, where are you?' (Gen 3:9).

Thus "as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive," Christ is the head in his marriage with the Church, of which Mary is a member in the mystical body of Christ. The final responsibility to formally reconcile mankind with God rested with him, not Mary and her Son together. But as the helpmate of the new Adam, she helped make our redemption a reality by her obedient act of faith working through love which resulted in the birth of our Lord and Saviour. Mary had a role in our redemption just as Eve had a role in the fall of mankind. But neither of them had any final responsibility in our fall and redemption. Mary was with Jesus as she stood at the foot of the cross, just as Eve was with Adam as they stood before the tree and he ate the forbidden fruit. The Mary-Eve parallelism had already existed in the early Church.

And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”
Luke 1, 28

On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshipped him.
Matthew 2, 11

"For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, 19, 1 (A.D. 180)

PAX

 

[WisdomTree]

WisdomTree, I believe that I understand your explanation concerning 'Co' not meaning 'equal'.

However, I have a question about this:

I'll try and answer what I vaguely know, while leaving the rest for someone more knowledgable than I.

But I don't understand the jump to Jesus loves his mother so much that she becomes 'Co', even with the understanding that that doesn't mean 'equal'.

It's not so much that Jesus is elevating his mother because he loves her so much, but rather we (the Church) are acknowledging her as his mother.

Now that being said I have no problem with Mary being an intercessor, even the most important intercessor, on humanity's behalf. But my understanding of the doctrine of Co-redemptrix is that it takes it a step farther then that.

Don't take it as an attribute to the Theotokos where she gains power over matters of our salvation, but rather look it as if it is more of an honorary title to acknowledge the connection between her and her Son. Now, that doesn't mean that her role as these Co-<insert title here> is meaningless thus has no efficacy in regards to intercession and veneration, but rather it is to further cement the relationship of Christ and all of humanity through her (as in evidence not as some bearucratic level to get through) as well as further indoctrinating the Christological natures of Christ.

Any help understanding would be great.

I hope that helps somewhat.